Roger -
I haven't read the Goat, so I don't know what was said there. And I haven't heard from anyone about today's meeting - this thread is all I know. But let's see if I can clarify a little:
"New reservation system needed: can't or won't use Mr. Crafts. My understanding it was can't but I could be wrong."
"Your letter to the railroad commission about your reservation system was mentioned but not read. They said they felt like they owned the data and the commission will have to have a different reservation system. It sounded like what they were saying is they can't use yours so they will take their data and use it in their own system. I read on the goat the Mr. Wimer has offered his help with that project."
On Tuesday I was informed that RGRPC was terminating its management of the C&TS. After Kim confirmed that the termination letter had been delivered, I sent a letter to the Commission reiterating a few things that, I believe, all the players (RGRPC Directors, RGRPC Staff, Friends Directors, Commission members, Commission staff) are well aware of:
a. the reservations system used at the C&TS from 2000 to 2005 is owned and copyrighted by my company.
b. RGRPC licences the system from my company on an annual basis for the sum of $1. (And since it costs more than that to issue the invoice, I just write off that $1 each year. No money has ever changed hands.)
c. the data collected by the system is owned by RGRPC unless there is an agreement otherwise between RGRPC and the Commission.
d. I asked that the letter, including a copy of RGRPC's 2005 license to use the system, be included in the minutes of the next meeting (apparently yesterday).
What the letter didn't say:
d. that I claim to own the data in the system. In fact, the letter expressly says that I do not own the data.
e. that I will not let the Commission use the system. I did state in the letter that the Commission does not, at the present time, have any legal right to use the system. There is a simple reason for this: RGRPC licenses the system, and the Commission has never executed a license to use it. But I did not refuse to execute a licence with the Commission, nor did I insist on any payment from the Commission.
In other words, the letter was a simple statement of the current situation. And, to eliminate any possibility of the perception of coercion, there is no offer of services in the letter. It's a pretty standard communication in my industry.
The letter is no different than the letter I sent when the Commission and RGRPC parted ways in 2002.
--------------
You make the statement that "they felt like they owned the data and the commission will have to have a different reservation system."
As I said above, there may be a clause in the most recent contract between RGRPC and the Commission that affects ownership of the data in the system. I don't know, which is why point C. above is written the way it is. I'm very familiar with the contract that covered the 2000-2002 seasons, but not 2003-2005. All I know is that I don't own the system data.
(This is one reason why, although I could have answered all the ridership questions posted here in excruciating detail, I kept my fingers off the keyboard. It would have been a violation of the license to disclose that information.)
If the Commission wants to obtain a new system, it has that option. There are thousands of dollars and thousands of hours invested in creating, maintaining, and supporting the system. From February to November, in a typical year I get calls from someone in Chama or Antonito with a support request several times a week. In six seasons my company has not received a single penny in compensation.
I didn't expect to. Like everyone else, I do it because I have a great affection for the railroad. And like everyone else, while my wallet would be a bit fatter if I'd never heard of the C&TS, I would still be the poorer for it.
I hope this answers your questions. If you have (or if anyone has) any more, post them. If I feel like I can answer them, I'll do so on Sunday.
JAC
